When the Republicans began stressing "traditional family values" during the recent presidential campaign, they got a lot of flak. Nevertheless, they were on to something important.
Studies and statistics -- and our own observations -- tell us that American families are increasingly fragile and unstable, and we fear that, as a result, many children are being seriously damaged. In "Sources of Competence and Character: What Do Families Do?" (Family Affairs, Winter/Spring 1991), Urie Bronfenbrenner, a psychologist who teaches at Cornell University, says that the damage is more serious and far more widespread than we imagine. There has been an enormous increase in the scientific understanding of the role families play in children's intellectual and moral growth. And Bronfenbrenner says, "the more we learn about the conditions [in family life] that undergird and foster the development of human competence and character, the more we see these same conditions being eroded and destroyed in contemporary societies."
The drastic alteration in family life is not only an American phenomenon: Bronfenbrenner finds evidence of it in other industrial societies and even in developing nations. And its effects are not limited to the poor and disadvantaged. Middle class children whose parents lead hectic and stressful lives are also seriously at risk.
What are the conditions that are basic to a child's healthy intellectual and moral development? The most important is a special kind of long-term relationship with a person who is deeply attached to the child. Food, shelter and affection are important, but "in order to develop -- intellectually, socially and morally," a child needs a loving adult with whom to participate in "progressively more complex reciprocal activities." This resembles the familiar idea of the parent as a child's first teacher, but to emphasize the give-and-take in the relationship, Bronfenbrenner compares it to a continuing "psychological ping-pong game between two people who are crazy about each other."
Bronfenbrenner does not believe this relationship can exist only between a mother and child. But it is relaxed, time-consuming and, ideally, extends over many years. So a child would be unlikely to get what he needs from a succession of caregivers or from a parent whose own life is chaotic and troubled. Nor is it the kind of relationship that can be developed and maintained by a busy parent who can spare only little bits of time from a crowded schedule. Children who are deprived of this special relationship and the informal education that it involves are unlikely to do well in school unless there is some sort of intervention, which Bronfenbrenner points out, will be relatively expensive and relatively inefficient. And studies show that adverse effects on children who do not enjoy this relationship continue into adulthood. As adults, these deprived kids are less likely to function "responsively and creatively ... in the realms of work, family life and citizenship."
Children from single family households are at a special disadvantage because achieving and maintaining this relationship also depends, in large measure, on there being a second adult "who assists, ... gives status to, and expresses admiration for the person caring for and engaging in joint activity with the child." And the risk to children from single parent households is multiplied by poverty. Bronfenbrenner admits that strong support from other family members and friends can help, but he says that "'in the family dance, it takes three to tango."'
But according to Bronfenbrenner, even young children who live in two-parent families with educated and well-to-do parents can be developmentally at-risk -- if both parents work. Chances are, such parents have to commute and are on the run from morning to night, coordinating the "conflicting demands of job and child care." All this leads to what Bronfenbrenner characterizes as the "increasing instability, inconsistency and hectic character of daily family life. " And of course the growing number of divorces, remarriages and re-divorces add to the instability and increase the likelihood that children will be deprived of the relationship that is basic to the development of their competence and character.
What are we to do? Pointing disapproving fingers at single parents or mothers who work would not be useful even if it were possible to turn back the clock. But the problem is already enormous, and it will only get worse if we do nothing about it.
Bronfenbrenner says that we must think beyond the family unit in order to fix what is going wrong within it. One of the chief sources of stress for working parents is conflict between work and family, and he talks about such things as flexible schedules and part-time jobs that don't require workers to sacrifice their benefits or opportunities for advancement. But Bronfenbrenner goes much further to suggest that we revise our public policies so they support childrearing instead of ignoring it.
If Bronfenbrenner is right, a lot of the problems that we associate with inner city families are being replicated in middle and upper class families; and we are producing a generation of young people who will not have the intellectual and moral foundation they need. But why should we settle for this? Though other countries face some of the same problems we do, they don't demand that people choose between their family responsibilities and their jobs the way we do. They have public policies that encourage and support families. We should too, and they need to be on our new national agenda.